Characterization of the ringing artifacts in rotator‐based reconstruction with Monte Carlo‐based resolution compensation for PET
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Studies have shown that Monte Carlo-based reconstruction could effectively improve the image quality of positron emission tomography. The authors have previously used a Gaussian rotator-based algorithm to efficiently reduce the computational cost for system matrix (SM) calculation and to meet the large memory requirements for SM storage. However, pronounced ringing artifacts were observed in the reconstructed image. In this article, the authors investigated and characterized these artifacts. METHODS: The authors proposed an "ideal" rotator and used it as a baseline in the artifacts evaluation. This ideal rotator produces perfectly rotated images. The Gaussian rotator method was evaluated by a full system model and a partial system model without positron range and acolinearity, which could be compensated for by the blurring of the Gaussian rotator for 18F studies. Noiseless data, Monte Carlo simulation data, as well as acquired experimental data were used to quantitatively characterize the behavior of the artifacts. RESULTS: The study of the noiseless data indicated that the artifacts were mainly attributed to the rotator, which further blurred the simulated system responses. The simulation study suggested that the artifacts become less pronounced and not quantitatively significant in practice. This result is consistent with the experimental data study. Better contrast recovery was achieved with an over-compensated system model. Traditionally, an undercompensated system model was preferred to avoid artifacts. The authors' studies suggest that the Gaussian rotator with the full system model yields the best image quality among the evaluated methods with considerably reduced quantitative error and quantitatively insignificant artifacts in practice. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' investigation indicated that a moderately overcompensated system model (about 2 mm FWHM in this study) yielded better contrast recovery and quantitatively insignificant artifacts in practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".